But, of course, it carries a Democratic National Convention banner in the lower left corner (another case of incompetence or refusing to be held accountable).

However I’m not so much concerned with who did it than I am with the implication of the message. It serves as a reminder of the premise under which most of the left works.

I don’t belong to any government. Government is my employee. It works for me. It is supposed to do my bidding in a democratic system, and not the other way around.

Now I’m sure that there are those who will listen to this and claim that the speaker is talking about a unity of effort or the uniting effect of government. I.e. regardless of party or ideology we all work under the same government.

But that’s not what he said. “Belong” has a very specific meaning. While talking about why the meme “you didn’t build that” isn’t going away, Rachel Larimore tells us why:

Many moons ago, I spent a couple of years in a fiction-writing program at a local university. I never finished the novel I aspired to write, but I did learn some valuable lessons. The most important: “It doesn’t matter what you meant. What matters is what you conveyed.” In the context of class, that meant when we were sharing our work and listening to feedback, we couldn’t butt in and say that we’d meant something else. We needed to take ourselves out of our own head and try to understand what our readers had heard.

What was conveyed was a message that, to me, is anti-liberty. Sorry to blunt about it, but it reflects a belonging that I reject. I’m not an American because of my government. I don’t belong to any group because of my government. My government exits at my forbearance. It exists solely to serve mine and other American’s needs.

And while we might disagree on is what those needs are and how much government is necessary, I don’t “belong” to the government in any sense whatsoever?

None.

But what this short segment highlights is the very large philosophical gulf that exists between those who believe in individualism and those who are statists. The statement is a statement that glorifies the state while attempting to lump all of us as collectively “owned” by it. Whether or not that’s what the speaker meant, it is what he said and conveyed by using the word “belong”.

It might not be such a big deal if it wasn’t so obviously the usually unspoken belief of so many on the left. What we’re going to see in Charlotte is a celebration of big government and that sort of “belonging”.

I gathered watching the message that it was intended I feel ‘united’ with others by this.

“The only thing we all belong to” – balderdash – we’re all belong to the class of humans, we all have inalienable rights (though some people insist those rights come FROM government), 99% of us deep down basically want to be left alone to do what we want to do with our lives and our families. To enjoy life, have liberty and seek happiness. We are more or less united by these things when we bother to think about them, IF we bother to think about them. That shows in times of extreme stress, like 9/11, or a community disaster when we mostly pull together, regardless of age, color, political view. When the fire rages, when the rain is pouring and the wind is howling and we’re reduced to one human instinctively helping another.

All of those things can involve some government. None of them are a result of government, not a single one of them is given to us by government.

And every damn one of them can be TAKEN from me by government.

I don’t BELONG to it, it belongs to me.

Of course, it’s only natural that government flacks, hacks, office holders and people who make their lives getting them elected or appointed, would think that the rest of us WANT to ‘belong’ to that. Government is like fire, it’s a tool, and one that bears constant vigilance to make sure it doesn’t get out of control.

I’ve been struck at the level of discord at the DNC.
The Jerusalem issue could cost them Michigan if Muslim Democrats stay home. Then again, I have no idea how Muslims square the gay rights planks of the Democratic platform with Shria Law .. or is it just taqiyya ?

I expected more discord from the RNC, but Team Romney is the one who has all it’s ducks in a row this election season.

So let me get this straight…..this video which is so toxic that Barack and the party itself has to back away from it somehow was allowed to get a high-profile airing – WITHOUT BEING VETTED – at the DNC. An event that is so tightly controlled and scripted that we were subjected to stories about how Clinton himself hadn’t yet submitted his speech for vetting by Obama’s people. But this video just made it out there. “Oopsie! Our bad!”

Gimme a break. Gutless or incompetent. If Obama can’t handle a video how’s he gonna do with Iran?

DNC going swimmingly so far isn’t it? All abortion all the time. “War on women” defenders giving Teddy Kenendy clips a standing O. FLOTUS telling us Baracky understands regular people while wearing a $3500 custom gown. God and Jerusalem hastily yanked from the platform causing inconvenient questions. DWS being caught lying about her Israel comments like the lying piece of trash she is. Debt clock turns past $16 Trillion. And the best part? Baracky accepts on Thursday, and I believe jobs numbers come out Friday. Yeah, that’s gonna be pretty ugly.

But by all means, more abortion and “Mitt Romney will kill Santa Claus” jokes please! That’s what the nation needs at the moment. Oh wait, did I say the nation? I meant Obama. He never actually cared a single drop about what the nation needs.

Yep. Form letters for the families of dead SEALS, personal notes to the survivors of thug rappers and phone calls to 30 year-old “students” who got called out for being the slut she made herself.Priorities….

This entire article sounds to me like one based strictly on semantics. Regardless of our differences—be they conservative or liberal—if our system of government was threatened to be overtaken by a real authoritarian regime, most of us would unite under one banner to save our system of free government. It’s mainly because we are not so threatened that we have the luxury to argue about what we want our system of government to reflect. Call it what you want—a nation, a republic, a government, or whatever—I’m sure whether it is liberal or conservative, I’m sure you’d rather live here than in Russia or China.

Usually, the people taking over as authoritarians claim they are trying to save their country.
FDR tried to pack the courts and then intimidated them. He broke the 2 term limit tradition. Now, he wasn’t going authoritarian, but you get what I mean. We didn’t need him to be president a 3rd time. But some people felt it was vitally important. I’m sure if he had lived on, then a 4th term for “rebuilding” would have been in the cards.
Also, you forget that many on the Left keep telling us China and Cuba ARE better. Some lady professor on MSNBC was talking about how America was the worst place to be poor…really?

I belong to the Rocky Mountain Region Porsche Club. (So it owns me?????)

This is really a ridiculous semantic backflip and a clear indicator or the echo chamber effect that no one bothers to point out something that could not be said outside of GOP friendlies without being lauged at.

I had never heard the concept put this way, but “We The People of the United States of America” is reflective of both the fact that (other than the human race) the federal government is the only thing that ALL Americans belong to (as in belonging to a group) as well as the only thing that belongs to us (as in ownership), because the government is US.

Now of course it can’t be ignored that the government belonging to us is only theoretical, since OUR votes are actually required to empower them, but conversely, a far smaller club PAYS for the campaigns and thus has a much better claim of ownership than the larger universe of actual voters.

If the Koch brothers or Goerge Soros spend a half a billion dollars to get their guys elected, I think it is not unfair to say that if they claimed the government belonged (as in ownership) to them, their claim would carry a bit more weight than a guy who voted claiming ownership. But Republicans would argue that since money is speech they are just exercising their free speech rights. So of course, your equity in government seems to no longer be one man one vote, but one dollar, one share.

And come on if you don’t ‘belong’ to the government in McQ’s sense, you for damn sure don’t ‘belong’ to government in the sense you know they meant in the ad. You say so constantly in your posting here. After all, it’s bought and paid for by the rich, no?

Government belongs to us, or it’s supposed to, and the two phrases (we all belong vs it belongs to us) are NOT interchangeable in any sense. Even the senior Dems know that…
Belong was a really poor word choice for the add – and…heh, glad YOU don’t see a problem with it, but I guess the Obama Campaign sees it as a problem.http://www.theblaze.com/stories/nervous-obama-camp-distances-itself-from-video-played-at-dnc-that-says-we-belong-to-govt/
““The video in question was produced and paid for by the host committee of the city of Charlotte. It’s neither an OFA nor a DNC video, despite what the Romney campaign is claiming,”
Not quite living up to your “This is really a ridiculous semantic backflip and a clear indicator or the echo chamber effect that no one bothers to point out something that could not be said outside of GOP friendlies without being lauged at.”

“You say so constantly in your posting here. After all, it’s bought and paid for by the rich, no?”

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assumed my post was so boring that you skipped everything after the third sentence.

I’ll restate what came after in this third sentence in the hopes that you’re still with us, but it will have to be a run-on sentence in order for me to quote myself as having said, ”
Now of course it can’t be ignored that the government belonging to us is only theoretical, since OUR votes are actually required to empower them, but conversely, a far smaller club PAYS for the campaigns and thus has a much better claim of ownership than the larger universe of actual voters.”

“I belong to the Rocky Mountain Region Porsche Club. (So it owns me?????)”
No, you are a member of the Rocky Mountain Region Porsche Club, same as the church/trade group/any other association of people you choose to align with, you don’t “belong” to any of them (unless you’re in a biker crew with “beaten in; boxed out” rules).

We may not be members of congress, but we are members of the United States government (again, theoretically, and Constitutionally). Some people actually believe that we are still “We the People”, I won’t hold their naivete against them. I thought that once too, and if you vote, you STILL think that.

If I belonged to the government, then it would be like I was a member, which is weird too.
I know what you are trying to say, but the semantics of belonging to a government do not make sense to me.
Belonging to a party, a club, those are voluntary associations and that sounds right to my ear.
“I belong to Sacramento County” does not.

“Belonging to a party, a club, those are voluntary associations and that sounds right to my ear.”

I get that, and I don’t disagree that it does not have the same ring, but it IS the same.

A citizen IS a MEMBER of a state, a MEMBER is someone who BELONGS to a group.

It’s funny that other people can get so freaked out about something so simple.

I guess it comes down to what you already believe. If you already believe that another person has an opinion that citizens are property, then it is not unexpected that they would not hesitate to apply the word belonging in that way. The problem is that they are wrong on both counts. No one considers citizens to be property, and no one has called them that.

The key here is the simple fact that this was presented as if the word “belong” has only only one definition, the fact of the matter is (crap, I watched Ron Christie say “the fact of the matter is” about 50 times in a three minute span) that it just doesn’t.

“If you already believe that another person has an opinion that citizens are property,”

Ah, here’s the pretty pickle my dear – the party who put out the commercial was the party of SLAVERY. Remember? 1861, Fort Sumter, all that jazz? The Klan?
Now I know their new version of “the party of Jefferson and always been the party of freedom!” would like to stop talking about at least 100 years of their history, but it doesn’t change the fact.
they were the ‘people are property’ party. There’s a bunch of us here, yourself included, who can remember “whites only” and that was NOT a Republican party position.

The government in my mind is a group of employees that work for me, not some “group” I belong to, and our country was specifically founded on MISTRUST of government, not love of it.
Also, the state/the nation/the country does not equal the government. This is where the distinction becomes clearer.

I am not watching ANY of the DNC. I already know what sort of lying, stupid crap they are going to try and peddle. It isn’t that I think the Republicans are all that great, It is just that the Democrats have slowly and steadily devolved from Marxist leaning race baiters into power mad, cartoonish, evil Bond villain scumbags.

See, right there, you reveal your proclivities. A citizen does not belong to the state. Nor are Americans subjects of the state.

Americans are members of the body of The People who enjoy the protections of the United States. Such protections are administered by the U.S. government acting in accordance with the Constitution of the United States which is the manifest compact of The People.

When speaking of a manifestation of force, which government is, it is alarming to speak of belonging to them.

Oh, dude, I bet not. You’re talking a concept here, not an organization. I doubt you have many official Tea-Party members (whatever that may be) actually commenting here.
Time for a paradigm shift about who folks here are man.

I wore a the uniform of my country for 20 years. I took my oath “to protect and defend the Constitution from all enemies” seriously. I considered myself serving the People following orders of their elected representatives. I occasionally shocked others with the opinion that it was conceivable that to honor my oath I may have to become an enemy of my government. To many people intertwine the government and the Constitution so that the actions of the former are considered actions of the latter. While the latitude of the President and Congress is wide, there is always the possibility some idiots will decide the limits imposed by the Constitution should be removed. If that were to happen I am obligated to act to stop that. As should any be any United States citizen.

I cannot belong to the government as my allegiance is to the Constitution.

“The government is the only thing we all belong to.” (Apparently, it’s the position of the DNC that sentences should end with prepositions.)
Old-fashioned codger that I am, I always go back to central idea of the Declaration of Independence. Natural rights (“from the Creator” as Jefferson characterized them) not only pre-exist the government of the United States, but pre-exist any and all governments. The only purpose of government is to safeguard these pre-existing rights. When government fails to do that, we can abolish the government and start a new one. That’s it. End of story. We don’t belong to anything.
So, what is a “natural right”? Here’s the way I understand it. Imagine that you and 30 of your acquaintances were all stranded on a desert island. Your natural rights would be the rights you would have on the island in the absence of any government: the right to all the coconuts you could gather; the right to all the fish you would catch; the right to hold opinions not approved by the majority; the right to trade freely with the guy who could make hats out of palm leaves. You get the picture. If you were exceptional at catching fish, you would probably freely share them with others. But the stronger members of your party would have no right to take them from you just because you were good at catching them.
This belonging to something is a bunch of crap.

Tom, this is where I see a differentiation between some who may be libertarian leaning and those who have more sense. If you do not accept the concept of natural rights, then ultimately you agree that your “rights” are given by and defined by government. From that point on, it is all downhill.

You can believe, accurately, the government can deprive you of those rights, but they didn’t give them to you.

I suppose it’s considered pragmatic to view that as being the same, implying your rights DO flow from government. Doing so acknowledges that I can make you a slave if I can get the government to say it’s okay, and there is, therefore, NOTHING wrong with my doing so. And to me, therein lies the simple and pragmatic difference.

“Cappy B’day. Here’s to another year of ‘discussions’. Maybe we’ll “save you” this year ”

Half way there, I’m not voting for the other guy.

I had my conversions already. I campaigned for Jimmy Carter when I was 12 (not really my idea). I campaigned for Reagan when I was 17 (my idea), and 21. I voted for every Republican Presidential candidate from Reagan to Dole, and flipped in 2000.

I lost almost every election I voted in, and most turned out to be pretty good decisions by the American people. I think Reagan was great, as was GHW Bush, and Bill Clinton (even though I voted against him twice).

Now I think it’s all a bunch of crap and we’re just part of a mass to be manipulated by lies from both sides fated to death by 1000 cuts of regulatory capture.

The people paying for our government to get elected don’t give a sh*t about the best interests of America, they just want they whatever little thing they paid for, and they’ll get it, and each little thing is no big deal, but the sum total is what you see when you turn on the news.

I wish Romney was going to ‘save’ us all. Now, my wide eyed starry believe in Santa Claus days ended a long time ago so, I frankly don’t hold out much hope. But it’s all I have.

In reality I expect the Republicans will deliver the usual “Democrat lite” sandwiches to the table once they’ve taken control of the kitchen again.

Then again, you know, it’s a crisis, so, they’re really going to have to try SOMETHING new and different, maybe like pissing people off by cutting spending. Because cutting taxes and raising the deficit isn’t going to work any better than what Barack tried, and they don’t have any wiggle room left.

Hotair has some clips of people at the Dem convention who like being owned by the government. Perhaps the Obama campaign gets the poor optics, Democrats on the street don’t and seem to agree with the message.

Some of us don’t like the word ‘belong’ because it can have a meaning we disagree with in the context you’re using it. When someone asks me where I’m from, I don’t say “I belong to Texas”. I don’t say “I belong to the United States”.

YOU don’t either, and you know it. You don’t say “I belong to Colorado”. You’re wrapping your use of the language around a concept to excuse the use of the word ‘belong’ in a context we don’t normally use it in, when you don’t naturally think that way yourself.

Face it, BELONG was a very poor choice of word, especially in respect to ‘belonging to the government’.

Who says “belong” in that context? Oh, right, you are spinning like a top.

The DNC was idiotic for putting out that video. Sure, now they disown it, but it has their logo, so if they really didn’t create that they should consider legal options agains those who created it.

Using “belong” to state group affiliation is sloppy language at best. It isn’t the correct way to state it, and it is pure stupid in a political ad that someone should have thought through.

Besides that, most of us are not part of the government, and even granting a pass on sloppy language it doesn’t make sense to say you “belong to” or are “part of” the US government because you are a citizen. Private citizens are not members of the government, and there is no way you can reasonably say they “belong to” the government.

Using your example – do you say “I’m Porschen”. I’ll bet you do say “I’m American”. See a difference there?

You know in your heart it’s not the same. Belong doesn’t work right. We don’t ‘belong’ to the government, even if we ARE the government of the United States. There are a slew of other options available – “responsible for”, “in charge of”, “part of”, “participate in”, “over see”, etc. Any of those would work better.

If you were writing it, would you have EVER chosen to use the word ‘belong’ in that sentence? It’s an interesting psychological observation to see enough of the people involved in that ad didn’t cringe when they read the word ‘belong’ in that context.

People dont say “I belong to the tea party”. Nor do they say “I belong to the republican party”. They may say they are a member of or they are in the tea party but they dont say they BELONG to the tea party. We do not belong to the govt. either. You arent even part of the govt unless you are an elected official. Saying you belong to something sounds as if you are a piece of property IE a slave to someone or something. Maybe democrats feel that way about govt but I know I dont.

“If you were writing it, would you have EVER chosen to use the word ‘belong’ in that sentence? ”

I can’t what I might ever do in the future, but I have never thought, spoken, or written of my citizenship in that fashion semantically.

But nor did I have the same visceral reaction to reading. Not because I don’t mind being property of the government, because I would mind that quite violently, but because I thought it was a novel way of saying we are all in this together.

The entire text of the video is this:

“We are committed to all people, we believe you can use government in a good way. Government is the only thing that we all belong to. We have different churches, different clubs, but we’re together as a part of our city or our county or our state… and our nation”

How can any person not understand the context of belonging when it is right there, we have different churches (that we belong to, but are not the propety of) different clubs (that we belong to, but are not the propety of) but we are together (in belonging to) our city or our county or our state… and our nation

Whether your guys win or the other guys win, we are ALL going to be affected by the consequences.

It was similar to saying we are all Americans regardless of party, or religion, etc, but used the context of belonging and then applied it to the country.

I wish I belonged to government, by that I mean I wish had a real role, a vote that mattered (or more precisely, someone to vote for that I, and citizens in general mattered BEFORE the funders)

But they want to ‘use government in a good way’ – that’s always going to be subjective. I think a good way to use government is to go back to the Consititional mandates for the Federal government and turn the rest over to the Several States. You’re probably not going to agree, and I understand that.

There is TOO much government, you agree. So the ad right off the bat is in favor of growing government, it’s in favor OF government, it’s trying to convince us government is good. Well, we hope, yeah, that’s what we’re after. What would make us believe otherwise, I mean, other than a continuing demonstration that government can be distinctly not good.

They’re trying to convince me government is good by saying I belong to it? that I can use the government for good? What HAVE we been using it for? Are they trying to say they’re going to give us good government NOW? What were they giving us for the last 4 years? Will it only be good government if I vote for Democrats? How does this unite us?
If they want to say we’re all Americans, SAY THAT. Government…that doesn’t make us Americans together.

Nah, it’s a bad ad. And I can’t say I’m comfortable with people who can say “Government is the only thing we all belong to” and mean that in any sense. Even in the sense of ‘we’re all part of”, because there’s a whole lot of other things I think of FIRST when I think of other people and what I have in common with them. Honestly “belonging to government” wouldn’t even make my list.

” But they want to ‘use government in a good way’ – that’s always going to be subjective.”

Absolutely, but also true for nearly everyone, in a subjective way.

There is no denying that Democrats generally have a view that government can solve problems whereas Republicans are generally of the view that government causes problems.

But both also believe the opposite. Democrats absolutely believe the government can cause problems, and you guys spend a lot of time noting those complaints. I think you call it “blaming Bush”. Conversely, most Republicans believe that the government CAN solve problems. Look at the hysterical inanity surrounding “protecting” the biggest big government program of them ALL, Medicare.

You’d think from the convention that Republicans passed Medicare over the objection of Democrats back in the ’60’s to hear them talk now. A HUGE majority of Republicans voted for the biggest Medicare expansion in a generation, just a very few years ago.

I will acknowledge that conservatives (who are not in, running, or working for someone in or running for political office) are much more likely to say that Medicare is a big mistake and so was the prescription drug plan. But the fact is that 85% of Republicans feel that Medicare has been good or very good for America. Which of course explains why Romney/Ryan spend so much time talking about how much they LOVE it and want to protect it and hug it and give it a big wet sloppy kiss.

Of course you could counter this by arguing that Ryan IS a good conservative and he is planning on ending Medicare for people UNDER 55, but I have a feeling no one here is going to make that argument.

We didn’t kill this elephant with one shot, we poisoned him, one banana leaf at a time.

Now we’re going to have to dispose of the body the same way, one spoonful at a time.

We’ll see soon enough if the country thinks the Republicans see the problem, and whether or not they try to put a tarp over the body as a means of dealing with it. If that happens, I think you can look for Hillary to be President in 2016.

Huh. Medicare is a problem, not a solution. The thing is, Republicans are trying to find the best way out of the problem YOU GUYS created, by reforming it rather then dumping people out on their own cold turkey.

Medicare as we know it cannot continue to exist. Neither can Obamacare, Hillarycare, or any single payer nonsense.

HEY CAPT. Even if we accept your understanding it is still creepy as hell. Who the hell wants to feel an affinity or relationship with a government? A civic organization yes, a church yes, even a union. But a big bloated bureaucratic oppressive government? That is just asinine.

If you were watching the DNC livestream last night, you were probably greeted with:

This video contains content from WMG, SME,
Associated Pres (AP), UMG, Dow Jones, New York
Times Digital, The Harry Fox Agency, Inc. (HFA),
Warner Chappell, UMPG Publishing and EMI Music
Publishing, one or more of whom have blocked it in
your country on copyright grounds.

Just a general observation involving this. The Democrats are in full on ‘Ministry of Truth’ mode these days. They feel free to redefine everything. Lately I’ve heard

Sliding into pit economically and staying there is now a ‘recovery’.

Being for ‘small government’ means your primary and overriding concern is cutting the military budget even though the military budget is approaching a trivial amount in proportion to the rest.

‘Individual Liberty’ is exclusively the right to obtain an abortion. Anything else is trivial and needs to be viewed through the eye of the common good. But abortion as long as you can get as many of those as you want, you’re free.

The common definition as the Dems see it and use it commonly is that of us being owned/beholden/taken care of by our govt, and thus “belong” to it as a child belongs to parents, or like the proles belonged to their soviet masters (I leave it to liberals to pick which usage they prefer)

The other meaning some argue – “membership” fails on the face of it. We theoretically help select the government but we don’t PARTICIPATE in it, not even by the broadest definition. Being part of govt means I have at least a modicum of power/authority to make a decision, even if it’s on something as small as redlighting your application to install a bigger septic tank in your yard.